[spetznaz]

By the way you never got back to me VaB on why the 5.56 caliber is used instead of the 7.62 (and by the way i am not trying to 'push' the Kalashnikov ...LOL ....although something tells me there is not a lot you can find to criticize that rifle since it is the only gun i know you can bury in mud for a month and it still fires .....why you would want to bury in mud for a month is a totally different question). Anyways it is just a honest question. Why not the 7.62 round which will bring any rag-head down instead of the 5.56 which requires several hits to bring down a 'dedicated fool' (read: silly rag-head who believes dying for Allah will give him a bevy of virgins)?

I have heard reports (and i believe some were from you) that it required several body hits with the 5.56 (unless you are a crack shot and can put a round in the dude's ear) to drop a rag-head and keep him down. If that is the case why did the powers that be adopt the 5.56 those decades ago (i am certain the Vietcong also required several body hits ....and i know that was the reason the army in the WW2 went back to their trusty .45 side arms when the service .38s were found to only annoy the enemy but the 45 put him to rest).

Back to you.

[spetznaz]

By the way in the above post i used diction that implied the Vietcong were fought against in WW2. I believe the exact phrase is as follows:

i am certain the Vietcong also required several body hits ....and i know that was the reason the army in the WW2 went back to their trusty .45 side arms when the service .38s were found to only annoy the enemy but the 45 put him to rest

That was the result of questionable sentence structure! What i meant was that i am certain during the Vietnam war the Vietcong also took several 5.56 shots before going down .....and during WW2 in the Phillipines soldiers who had to rely on .38s sidearms (after their rifles ran out of rounds or gave up ghost) found that it really had no stopping power against marauding enemy combatants high on drugs and bloodlust ....but that the .45 would bring those kooks down on the first shot.

I believe that is considerably better (and i hopefulyl avoided some over-zealous person trying to 'inform' me there was no Vietcong in WW2)

LOL

[Norman Arbuthnot]

I have heard reports (and i believe some were from you) that it required several body hits with the 5.56 (unless you are a crack shot and can put a round in the dude's ear) to drop a rag-head and keep him down.

I think the DC snipers provided ample evidence of the fact that you can put individuals down with one round of 5.56 mm.

[VaBthang4]

I think I did get back on that.

Apparently the mentality was that 5.56 causes a military to have to use up more manpower to help severely wounded [with a 5.56 round] soldier get attention versus a dead [with a 7.62 round] soldier.

At least that is the best crappy arguement I have ever heard.

As for the multiple hit requirements...I have heard the same complaints since Vietnam. It always occured to me that you just put a round in their grape instead of body.

What? Is that hard for some people?

~Grin~

9 out of 10 rounds were headshots from 600 yards [with a peephole sight].